A new fee structure in respect of insolvency fees payable to the Insolvency Service came into force on 21 July 2016, pursuant to The Insolvency Proceedings (Fees) Order 2016 (SI 2016/692) (the “Order”), which revokes The Insolvency Proceedings (Fees) Order 2004 (SI 2004/593) and all ten subsequent amendment orders.

Last week the UK Government issued a consultation document on changing UK insolvency legislation to enable distressed companies to obtain a moratorium for up to three months, with the possibility of an extension, under the supervision of an insolvency practitioner. The moratorium would prevent all creditors, including secured creditors, from taking any enforcement action against such companies without first applying to court for permission to do so. This follows a briefing paper published by R3 last month suggesting a similar moratorium process.

Directors of a company are subject to certain duties under the Companies Act 2006. These duties are of obvious importance throughout their service as a director but some of them become particularly important during the period leading up to the insolvency of the company.

On 14 September 2015, judgment was handed down in the case of Re SSRL Realisations Limited (In Administration), in which a landlord was granted permission to forfeit a lease by peaceable re-entry. The case will be of interest to insolvency practitioners and landlords alike – but for very different reasons.

At a time when insolvency practitioner’s (“IPs”) fees are being scrutinised more closely than ever, the case of Bell v Birchall and others [2015] is a timely reminder to IPs to consider the necessity of the work they propose to undertake, particularly in respect of assets that do not form part of the insolvent estate. In this case, the court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to make a “Berkeley Applegate” order.

Creditors frustrated by cost and time delays in cross border disputes, as well as from unscrupulous delaying tactics by debtors, will have some comfort in the form of the revised EU Judgments Regulation. The revised Regulation came into force on 10 January 2015 and aims to resolve cross-border legal disputes more easily, bringing huge cost savings to creditors.

The vast majority of UK taxpayers pay what they owe in full and on time. Her Majesty’s Revenues and Customs (HMRC) thinks that a persistent minority choose not to pay which provides an undeserved advantage to those who are wilfully seeking to play the system, and creates costs which are ultimately borne by the compliant majority.

La Sentencia del Tribunal General del TJUE de 8 de abril de 2014 (asunto T-319/11), resuelve el re- curso de anulación parcial interpuesto por ABN Amro Group NV contra la Decisión 2011/823/UE, de la Comisión, que le impuso la prohibición de adquirir empresas de cualquier sector como una de las condiciones para considerar compatible con el mercado interior la ayuda pública que recibió del Estado holandés. La entidad ABN Amro había recibido ayuda pública para su recapitalización de entre 4.200 y 5.450 millones de euros, así como una ayuda de liquidez de 7.170 millones de euros.

El Real Decreto Ley 8/2013, de 28 de junio, de medidas urgentes contra la morosidad de las administraciones públicas y de apoyo a entidades locales con problemas financieros (publicado en el BOE de 19 de junio, convalidado por acuerdo del Congreso de los Diputados de 17 de julio), recoge una serie de medidas extraordinarias para ayudar a las Administraciones autonómicas y locales a reducir su deuda comercial acumulada.

Yes it can, according to the most recent judgments of the Spanish high courts. The question was addressed in several Judgments issued by the High Court (HC) of Castilla-La Mancha (amongst others, the Judgment issued on 11 February 2013, in Appeal no. 320/2012, and the Judgment issued on 12 February 2013 on Appeal no. 321/2012) and by the High Court (HC) of Madrid in its Judgment no. 41/2012 of 21 January.